Court ordered payments are legal because the court orders them. If the court says she's entitled to the child support, then she's entitled to it, whether or not the child that is supporting is 3, 12, 18, 34 or dead.

It's only fraud on her part if she initiated seeking child support for a child who didn't exist at that time.

I may be going with common sense here, but it's child support, not a set payment to the mother every month until the child is 18 regardless of the state of the child. In other words, it is to support the child. If there is no child, there should be no support.

While this is not right there are a few issues that are not the Courts or the agencies fault1. The Dad is an idiot2. He was paying child support to the State becasue he did not pay it at first so they had to care for his little crotch nuggets, which resulted in him owing back support and the penalties and fees3.The Dad is an idiot4. No one told the court that the kid became worm food5. The Dad is an idiot6. Daddy O did not take the time for 23 years to figure out what he was paying for and waited the said 23 years to ask what it was and is all mad now becasue of it7 Did I mention The Dad is an idiot.

Yes there is a error on the Courts part, but face it Dad should have been neutered years ago so his idiot seed does not create more cast member for idiocracy the reality series.

He needs to hire a lawyer who will get the Child supporter people to agree to call the debt satisfied just to end the negative publicity.

The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)

GAT_00:In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women. And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.

That would be fine if her choice didn't result in a massive financial penalty with no appeal on the man. I'm all in favor of the women having the right to choose- but how 'bout this: If a man doesn't want the responsibility to help raise a child, he can pay for an abortion. If the women still wants the baby, she's responsible for the financial implications of that decision, not him.

Look, right now women trying to get guys they see as wealthy to knock them up so they can pocket the checks isn't only not unheard of, it's a downright common practice. This stuff happens. The kids don't see that money, mommy uses it so she doesn't have to actually get a job. You're creating perverse incentives.

And no, the man is not solely responsible. It takes two to fark- mamma made that decision just as much as daddy did. In fact, it's not unheard of for mamma to poke holes in condoms or lie about birth control- both of which, IMO, should be fraud and result in a forced abortion and a jail sentence, but I know that's unrealistic and bad public policy. Right now, it tends to lead to mommy getting enough money to neglect a kid she hates and never having to work. Women abuse the system because it's set up for them to always win and for fathers to always lose, regardless of the circumstances. You can't set up a system where one party has lots of rights and the other basically none and expect good outcomes.

antidisestablishmentarianism:Jesda: GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Which is in fact still completely off topic.

Topics can expand and diverge if they want. Whiner.

Exactly. Not to call GAT_00 out but I know he is pro choice for women. In an endlessly gray area like this how can you not be pro-choice for men too?

Having to take responsibility for a child changed my life, it's hard to wonder what would have happened if I had the choice not to be forced to take responsibility for a child I wasn't ready for and didn't want to raise with that person.

In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women. And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.

GAT_00:antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Which is in fact still completely off topic.

To make the situation fair when a woman finds she is pregnant the father should have equal say. If he does not want to be a father but she wants to keep the child then he doesn't have to pay any support ever. The woman has a choice, keep the child and pay the bills or give the child up. If the father agrees to keep the child and they later split up he has to pay.

GAT_00:Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Oh, and for all you all making this into some big power play between the man and the woman (Which one is responsible? Who is playing who?) that is exactly the reason the courts have to be so draconian about the child support issue. Because in between the man who doesn't want to pay and the woman who doesn't want to work, there is a CHILD who isn't getting taken care of. While the man whines that "she tricked me!" and the woman biatches that "he lied to me!" neither one of them is taking care of the kid they produced between the two of them. So the court has to do it.

Of course, a better solution would be to put the money into an unbreakable trust in the child's name so dad pays the money straight to the child, and a court-appointed trustee buys everything the kid needs and mom never sees or touches a dime of it; that would cost money and require some degree of faith in the system which I know nobody on Fark has; but it might prevent deadbeat parents from claiming they don't pay because their ex-spouse is just taking all the money for him/herself. And then the trustee could sue the deadbeat on the child's behalf and deadbeat couldn't claim it was just the spouse trying to get even with him/her for some unrelated cause.

And if the father doesn't want to take responsibility for the child he fathered, there's actually a fairly easy way to do it: He can go to court immediately after its born and legally relinquish his parental rights. Then he doesn't have to pay for it. Of course, then he can't complain about anything mom does later that affects "his" kid, but that's the way it works.

cptjeff:Baryogenesis: And what about the flip side? A man in your hypothetical would only have to file some paperwork (or pay for the abortion) to absolve himself of responsibility whereas the woman has to get an abortion or keep the child. Putting aside the emotional impact and social stigma of getting an abortion, there are plenty of states where the GOP has made it very difficult to get an abortion. What are those women to do? Paperwork vs. abortion aren't equal choices.

Well, if we're talking ideal worlds, the GOP wouldn't exist, and abortion would be widely available and less stigmatized. You're also thinking about these as unintentional pregnancies. They're not. They are very, very intentional pregnancies on the part of the women. Remove the financial incentive entirely, and they simply won't exist, making the question of abortion moot.

And no, paperwork and abortion aren't equal choices, but that's not the choice. The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money. So my solution removes any element of reward from the equation, so the women's choice is now, do I have the abortion, or do I have the kid? When suddenly having to face the possibility of bearing the price tag on that kid for 20 years, they would chose to have the abortion. But right now, that burden is placed mostly, if not entirely, on somebody who's not a part of that decision. So, as a simple and obvious economic decision, the burden placed on the man, with child support payments, is much greater than the burden placed on the women in ending the pregnancy (doesn't have to be an abortion). When one person, being faced with the full range of incentives and disincentives on both sides, is forced to pick between the two different burdens, is it any shock that the vast majority choose to terminate the pregnancy?

Right now, the women is the only one with any power to make the choice, and her choices are between status quo or (to her) free money. The burdens of having an abortion versus filing some paperwork are indeed not equal, but the burdens of having an abortion versus 20 years of child support payments are vastly unequal too.

As opposed to men farking anything that moves and knowing the only consequence would be paperwork? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that only women abuse the system.We can talk incentives. The current system has disincentives for both men and women. Women can get an abortion, carry to term and give the baby up for adoption or keep the baby and bear the cost of raising it which can be supplemented by child support from the man. Men only have one disincentive, the cost of paying child support for 18 years.

Your bright idea is to eliminate that one disincentive for men to not create unwanted children because some percentage (can you give me a number?) of women will try to trap men with a baby.

Heck, even with the high cost of paying for a child there are still plenty of men who are too dumb/horny/naive to wrap it up or just not fark women they don't trust. And you want to give them a pass to essentially never care about creating a child they don't want to raise.

So yes, women retain the choice after sex to keep or not keep the child because they bear a much greater responsibility than men.

The solution to women trapping men with babies isn't to absolve men of their responsibility. May I suggest condoms, vasectomies and common sense?

Skirl Hutsenreiter:antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)

Once the kid is born family courts don't give a crap about fairness. All they care about is what's best for the child.

If you don't want to pay child support, don't sleep with women you can't trust and/or take some responsibility for birth control.

My understanding of how it works in most states is this: mom goes on welfare, and gets money from welfare. The state files gets a judgment against the father to reimburse the state for the cost of welfare. The state sells the judgment to a collection agency. The collection agency does the normal collection agency thing where they keep tacking on late charges and interest so that the father owes them money forever and ever and ever and ever.

In most of these cases, the moms and kids never see a dime of the child support. Instead, the child support is supposed to go to the state to reimburse them for the cost of welfare. But in actual practice, most of the money goes to fees collected by the owners of the collection agency, who provides generous kickbacks to the politicians involved in the scam.

I moved to a small town college, and my dorm roomate warned me directly:

"You look like you're from the big city. The girls in this town are going to see you as their one shot at escaping this place. They will stop at nothing to get you to impregnate them. They'll lie that they're on the pill, they'll poke a hole in the condom, they will do whatever it takes. Don't trust anything they tell you"

The friend was cool, he'd had to fend off these succubi for years and felt the need to warn me away from disaster.

cman:If its your sperm and if you dont help with money, then you are an asshole of epic proportions. You are the scummiest of the scum. You make Osama bin Laden look like Santa Claus. However, if it is not your child or the child is long dead, then why should you be punished for actions you had no part in?

/Because you're a male, and someone has to pay. There has been many cases where the guy has proven, without a doubt, that it's not his biological kid. But the courts tell him he has to pay anyway, because the kid would suffer without the financial assistance. Nice huh? They don't even bother going after the real father, why should they? They have this poor sap to milk.

antidisestablishmentarianism:The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)

Once the kid is born family courts don't give a crap about fairness. All they care about is what's best for the child.

If you don't want to pay child support, don't sleep with women you can't trust and/or take some responsibility for birth control.

FizixJunkee:Not always true. My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother. She rarely paid.

This is the problem I have right now. The mother thinks she shouldn't have to pay because she chooses not to be a part of his life except for every other weekend.

quatchi:Meh, I think that's still a fair trade off versus the whole "dying in childbirth" thingy.

/You play, you pay.

I've paid, but only because I was told 'You don't need a condom, I'm on birth control'. I was dumb to believe it. Had mommy died in childbirth my son would be better off. The only reason she spends the minimal amount of time with him is because if she didn't it would look bad to her family.

antidisestablishmentarianism:I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Meh, I think that's still a fair trade off versus the whole "dying in childbirth" thingy.

My ex and I split when my son was 1. I was frustrated with not receiving payments on any type of schedule. I told her that I'd pay her direct deposit...and when I got a raise, I'd bump up the payments. So when my son was 6 we went to the Friend of the Court...and the farking Magistrate told her it was a bad idea. We both told the Magistrate that this is what we wanted and we ceased doing business with FoC. I asked for and received custody from FoC when my son was 9. Guess who still got threatening letters saying he owed back child support until my son was 16 and I had to take a freaking day off of work to show them the farking paperwork? Me. Fark them.

She was receiving current support as well as payments on what he had not been paid; it is very possible that she was not aware that she was receiving the extra for the dead kid. I think it is more than plausible since she bred with this guy twice and face it he is not a rocket scientist and idiots usually attract

Court ordered payments are legal because the court orders them. If the court says she's entitled to the child support, then she's entitled to it, whether or not the child that is supporting is 3, 12, 18, 34 or dead.

It's only fraud on her part if she initiated seeking child support for a child who didn't exist at that time.

Baryogenesis:I'll assume that the consistent version is the same thing others have argued in the thread: the man can opt out even if the woman keeps the baby. However, as I keep pointing out, since the two sides aren't equal biologically you can't expect to have equal standing legally. It just doesn't work. There's no equivalent "opt out" for women. You're suggesting a system where women are the only ones responsible for conceiving and raising a child.

Not entirely. I think you're slightly missing my point... hang on a second.

I suggest you don't leave birth control entirely up to whoever you're farking. It's called being responsible for your own actions. That means buying, using and disposing of the condoms yourself like a big boy.

Granted, to a limited degree. Remember- my example given (and one that's happened before) was where the male did exactly what you describe and still failed... why? Because the female in question used deceptive means to bypass that. They're in a casual relationship... she's on BC, he's using condoms... she decides she wants something more serious and that a kid is the best way to that (as opposed to talking about it)... so she goes of BC without telling him, and deliberately damages the condoms (poking holes in them, or saving the sperm from them, or slipping one off or tearing it mid-coitus... more than one option here). Prior to this, he had no reason to distrust her, so the BC is a betrayal, but the condoms were his backup plan... the backup plan you say should be enough- the control he has that she doesn't... she took from him.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is a common example- it's not. But it has happened, and Proof-of-Concepts only need to be displayed as possible, not as common.My point: Her Body, Her Choice is a flawed morality. My proof: there are several circumstances in which it fails dramatically to be anything like fair, equal or consistent.

ARedthorn: If I have a say, it's not her choice. If it's her choice and hers alone, I bear no responsibility. Pick one. I don't farking care which anymore. Just pick one. you can't have it both ways.

Let's flesh this out. You want a say in whether she keeps the baby. What happens when the man and woman disagree? She's either being forced to abort a baby that she wants to keep or she's being forced to carry a baby to term she doesn't want. Obviously, that's not an acceptable situation. That's just the nature of biology, but that doesn't mean it's no longer your responsibility. The situation is asymmetrical yet you keep demanding symmetry. It doesn't work that way. The alternative is men having ZERO responsibility despite helping create a child. And by the way, that's something no one in favor of that idea has actually addressed. What are the consequences of allowing men to opt out of raising/paying for children they father?If you don't want to be a father then wrap it up and don't fark women you don't trust. Due to the differences in biology, the time for the man to opt out is BEFORE you have sex, not after....

Yes, in theory, I do want a say in whether she keeps the baby... not perhaps overwhelming majority vote, but you're looking for a black-and-white answer here, I'm not.No black-and-white solution is ever perfect... that's why Her Body, Her Choice is such a problem.

I'm not saying I favor it. I'm saying that it has consequences:IF it's true, it absolves men of any responsibility in the pregnancy or raising of the child- after all, they had no choice, and we're in the habit of holding people responsible for THEIR choices, not the choices of those around them.IF it's false, then it gives men a say in the pregnancy, not just the care for or raising of the child. It's his genes, his legacy, his child as much as hers. She carries the physical burden for 9 months, granted, and this is important, but this does not give her a lifetime of advantage over his rights.

It's used as a rallying cry by women when it benefits them, but the moment those consequences come up, it's immediately forgotten.That's what I find unacceptable.

Here's my alternate proposal:The man has a say in the pregnancy... final decision goes to her, but that's not a matter of morality- only practicality. If they agree, no big deal... if they disagree, he lacks the power to enforce his side of the decision anyway, so we may as well just admit that it's not 50/50... and I never thought it should be. More like 60/40 or 70/30 at worst.But if they do disagree, he gets an out. He gets to make it known publicly and legally that she is making this decision without his support, and he publicly, legally withdraws that support from her. He should not have to pay the price for her decision when he opposed it. Period.Anything else is a dictatorship, not equality.

If that means she gets an abortion when he wanted to keep the child- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.If that means she carries to term when he wanted her not to (adoption or abortion both as viable and equal alternatives for my purpose)- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.Her decision should be made taking into account his presence- will he be there for the child, physically, emotionally or financially? If those factors don't matter to her, she's an idiot. If they do... then they should have weight, and she should be willing to accept that he holds sway over her decision, and allow him to do so as an equal or nearly-equal partner, not as a silent and powerless boycotter.Some room for discussion or negotiation may be allowed- but that's between them... and this is where discretion comes in. Maybe he wants the abortion, and she doesn't... but knowing that he will completely withdraw his support if she gives birth, can talk him into paying for the abortion completely if he wants it that badly... or talk him into accepting an adoption instead... or if the fault for the pregnancy lies with him (being an idiot about BC), negotiate a small child support settlement instead of the full amount.Only in the cases of real culpability or serious negligence do I see the need to bring courts in.

So if you want equality, take it... consequences and all.That I support fully. If though you intend to ask for equality AND take advantage when it suits you... shut me out of having the same equality you demanded I give you? Not kosher. Not in the slightest.

Baryogenesis:The problem with demanding a 50-50 split in the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is that men and women aren't on equal terms when it comes to pregnancy. You're never going to get an equal situation there. And once that decision is made and the child is born both parties have to support that child. The man can't just back out because he doesn't feel like raising or paying for the kid.

You're technically right... and on that front, there will never be such a thing as perfect equality between genders, as a result of that.What we can, though, ask for is consistency.Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I decide I want to keep it but she doesn't... because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I don't want it, but she does... but because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!

This is a flawed morality.

After all, if she deliberately went off birth control (without telling me), poked holes in the condoms (or pulled a save-for-later maneuver) in order to get pregnant without my approval- in fact, with my express disapproval... then what she has done is committed theft of my genome.But I still have no say. In fact, I have no rights whatsoever. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!And I might be held responsible for the cost of her actions for years to come... why? Because all of the sudden, it was my sperm, and my responsibility... even though it was used in a way I did not consent to or allow.

It's a little like holding a man responsible for every murder committed with a gun that was stolen from him.

If I have a say, it's not her choice. If it's her choice and hers alone, I bear no responsibility. Pick one. I don't farking care which anymore. Just pick one. you can't have it both ways.

Gyrfalcon:It hadn't occurred to him the boy was at least 18 by now and he could stop paying any time?

He almost certainly owes the state of Michigan a ton of money to reimburse them for any medicare and welfare the mother received, plus he owes a huge amount of late charges, collection charges, administrative charges, interest charges, or any other surcharge they could invent to the FOC.

The FOC doesn't stop trying to collect on all that money owed to them just because one of the kids who benefited from that welfare long ago is now an adult and one of the kids is dead.

cptjeff:The legal system simply stereotypes fathers as being the breadwinners, but completely clueless in raising children

To be fair, even now how much are most men actually involved in raising their children? Most of you want a pat on the head and victory sex if you deign to spend a half a day "watching" the kids (i.e. being present in the vicinity while the kid plays video games and watches tv).

How much are most men involved in the real, hands-on day-to-day raising of their children? Who gets them out of bed, gets them dressed, feeds them breakfast, makes their lunch, gets them off to school, makes them dinner, cleans up after them, helps them with their costumes, makes sure homework is done, shops for their food and clothes and schoolbooks, drives them to their friends and the movies and after school activities, does most of the discipline, talks to them about their day, holds them when they cry, looks after them when they're sick, knows all their friends, organises their parties, bathes them, gets them to bed, all whilst usually trying to hold down a job? Honestly, how much of the actual childcare and rearing do most fathers do?

So if the Court has a choice between the woman who has been doing 90% of the child rearing vs the man who has magically managed to be mostly absent whilst living in the same house, they're going to chose the woman even if she is a crazy biatch.

Oh look, here come all the men who think they're "awesome fathers" because they do a few token fun things and yells at the kid when they annoy him. Amazing how much praise men want for doing so little.

In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.

Except the out for the man means they can now fark and run, so to speak. There's no reason to avoid creating unwanted children which is bad.

cptjeff:Baryogenesis: The solution to women trapping men with babies isn't to absolve men of their responsibility. May I suggest condoms, vasectomies and common sense?

Condoms: women poke holes in them pretty often. When a women wants to trap you with a baby, they're no obstacle.Vasectomies: yeah, try selling that to a young guy who might actually want to have kids someday, just in a real relationship.

Your solutions aren't solutions. They're not even close to real ideas. Try again. As long as the economic incentive exists, it will happen. You could try to reform the law so that if it is found to a form of a women trying to trap a man, the women doesn't get child support. I'd be in favor of that, but it would involve the inefficiency and cost of involving the court system with every dispute.

Baryogenesis: As opposed to men farking anything that moves and knowing the only consequence would be paperwork?

It takes two to decide to fark. The women is perfectly free to refuse to have sex if the birth control bases aren't covered, and guys try to fark everything that moves anyway. If the women doesn't want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get rid of it or prevent it. If the women does want the pregnancy, she usually finds a way to get it, regardless of what the man involved wants. The only time a man's judgement as to whether to fark somebody and whether or not to use birth control doesn't involve the women is in the case of rape, and there are plenty of strong disincentives for that.

A man cannot trap a women with a child that women does not want. Period, end of sentence. It literally cannot happen, at least in this country. If the women does not want the child, she has the power to get rid of it. There are sometimes disincentives in making that choice, but at least in this country, a women cannot be forced to carry a child to term, and even if she has the child, she is allowed to turn it over for adoption. A women can trap a man into a situation, but, outside of an abusive relationship, which wouldn't involve child support anyway, there is literally no way for a man to trap a women in one. Hence the concern with women trapping men- the opposing situation just doesn't exist.

I guess in your world there is no possible way for a man not to be trapped by these devil women. Those poor helpless men who can't buy their own condoms, choose not to fark women they don't trust or get a vasectomy.

I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?

Karac:spidermann: (And don't let that word kid you; I pay to hopefully make my child's life better. I wouldn't know; ex moved years ago and never told anybody where she is... but she still collects the support through direct deposit to her account, of course.)

Holy shiat. You have to pay child support, but you don't even have so much as an address for your kid? That just ain't farking right.I realize you wouldn't necessarily get any kind of custody, but I would think that the exchange of monies would come with at least a theoretical possibility to see the kid.

Ah, but I have a penis.

See... this is where we get into the whole "Child Support/Custody Needs Reform" area. Within the divorce decree I still have my parental rights (never signed them away) AND a set amount of time to have my child. I am supposed to have her around 30% of the time (alternating holidays, my birthday, summers, etc) as well as be able to talk to her at least once, although strongly suggested for twice or more, a week via phone; uninterrupted and unmonitored by anybody else for at least one hour.

My ex has my number. She has my address. She knows where I work. She doesn't care, plain and simple... and neither do the courts. My ex has broken the decree, put in place by a judge, but nobody wants to do anything about it. She broke the law by not following the decree and I get a big "meh". Every person, even the nice DA I deal with on the support/healthcare decree issues, tells me "get a lawyer".

My response is "With what money? You're taking half of everything I make."

Yet every time my seasonal layoff comes around? Local DA starts hounding me on paying even though I'm being brought back a scant time later and my unemployment pays 80% towards support. I better pay, I better find another job or they'll take my license that I need to get to work. They'd take my passport so I can't go out of country even if there were work in Canada. They'll remove any licensing that any certifications I have require. They'll report arrears to my credit report so I can't get a line of credit to afford an attorney. My job requires that I be either current or making arranged payments for any debts including taxes and garnishments or I will be terminated, yet that isn't good enough even though I remain employed.

ANYTHING to make it actually harder to pay and I'm not the only one as this happens to more and more people who want to pay but, and especially in the current economic client, find it hard to do because getting a job isn't the easiest thing in the world right now. The fact that they will take away so many of the things you vitally need to get or keep a job is just wrong.

I have one job that I continue to go to while taking home half of my pay because, even though I know different, I hope the other half is going to my child for her happiness. THAT sustains me.

The Larch:Karac: The dad was sending payments for 23 years, and never noticed that he was sending too much for too long. It's entirely possible that mom never noticed it was too high as well, because as someone else said, idiot and people with poor money management skills attract.

In well over half of child support cases, the mother never sees a dime of the money. It's all supposed to go to reimburse the state for welfare and medicaid received by the child, but in many cases a collection agency just keeps most of it in "administrative surcharges".

Court ordered payments are legal because the court orders them. If the court says she's entitled to the child support, then she's entitled to it, whether or not the child that is supporting is 3, 12, 18, 34 or dead.

It's only fraud on her part if she initiated seeking child support for a child who didn't exist at that time.

I may be going with common sense here, but it's child support, not a set payment to the mother every month until the child is 18 regardless of the state of the child. In other words, it is to support the child. If there is no child, there should be no support.

If the dad wasn't clear on whether he was paying child support for one or two children in any given month, it also may not have been clear to the mother... I mean, if he pays the state, then the state pays her, it's not at all clear that they would enumerate for what she was receiving payment with each check, especially given the clusterfark of audits. Frankly, it's not evident there's ill will on anyones part, just massive incompetence by the middle men.

cptjeff:GAT_00: In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women. And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.

That would be fine if her choice didn't result in a massive financial penalty with no appeal on the man. I'm all in favor of the women having the right to choose- but how 'bout this: If a man doesn't want the responsibility to help raise a child, he can pay for an abortion. If the women still wants the baby, she's responsible for the financial implications of that decision, not him.

Look, right now women trying to get guys they see as wealthy to knock them up so they can pocket the checks isn't only not unheard of, it's a downright common practice. This stuff happens. The kids don't see that money, mommy uses it so she doesn't have to actually get a job. You're creating perverse incentives.

And no, the man is not solely responsible. It takes two to fark- mamma made that decision just as much as daddy did. In fact, it's not unheard of for mamma to poke holes in condoms or lie about birth control- both of which, IMO, should be fraud and result in a forced abortion and a jail sentence, but I know that's unrealistic and bad public policy. Right now, it tends to lead to mommy getting enough money to neglect a kid she hates and never having to work. Women abuse the system because it's set up for them to always win and for fathers to always lose, regardless of the circumstances. You can't set up a system where one party has lots of rights and the other basically none and expect good outcomes.

And what about the flip side? A man in your hypothetical would only have to file some paperwork (or pay for the abortion) to absolve himself of responsibility whereas the woman has to get an abortion or keep the child. Putting aside the emotional impact and social stigma of getting an abortion, there are plenty of states where the GOP has made it very difficult to get an abortion. What are those women to do? Paperwork vs. abortion aren't equal choices.

The courts will err 100% of the time on child support payments, because sadly there are far more people anxious to avoid paying child support than there are people who want to do the right thing. So I suspect what happened here is, when dad asked for an audit, said audit consisted of them calling mom up and saying "Is there still Younger Son living there?" --Oh yes!-- said mom who wants the extra money and to stick it to her ex. Because why would a woman lie about her child being dead, right?

Now, to be fair, why dad waited for so many years to wonder why he was still paying support on a dead kid shows he wasn't exactly involved in his children's lives, so it's hard to feel too sorry for him. But he's partially paying for all those other deadbeat parents who just refuse to pay for their kids and so we have this system that assumes all parents paying support are evil slackers who wouldn't pay a dime if they weren't forced into it. And mom shares in the blame because she should have reported immediately that a) the child was dead and b) that her support payments were too high year after year, which she did not.

Karac:The dad was sending payments for 23 years, and never noticed that he was sending too much for too long. It's entirely possible that mom never noticed it was too high as well, because as someone else said, idiot and people with poor money management skills attract.

In well over half of child support cases, the mother never sees a dime of the money. It's all supposed to go to reimburse the state for welfare and medicaid received by the child, but in many cases a collection agency just keeps most of it in "administrative surcharges".

antidisestablishmentarianism:The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)

Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex. Once you begin you accept the odds and consequences. It's not like men aren't aware of how babies are made.

GAT_00:In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women. And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.

Your wording implies that the action is purely down to the man, that the woman had no part in it. The man "impregnated her" and that's that. Except for rape the process involves both parties deciding to have sex. Why is the man responsible and the woman not?If the woman said she was using birth control but was not surely that means the consequences are down to her and her alone?

Gawdzila:If you don't want a bun in her oven don't give her the baby batter.

What if she gets that out of the guy through fraud? Holes in the condom, lying about birth control? It wasn't proven, because the court didn't care and was just gonna stick him with child support anyway and wouldn't let the guy litigate the point, but there was a case where it was alleged that the women gave the guy a blowjob, went to another room, spat out the sperm, and used it to impregnate herself after he left. Another one where it was alleged the women used the sperm from a sock the guy had used for masturbation. In both cases, the court wouldn't even hear argument, because best interests of the child, blah blah blah. Mom's conduct in creating the child didn't matter. There was one where a female teacher, who was later charged with statutory rape, still got to collect money from the teenager she had, by the law's own definition, raped, once he came of age and got a job.

I don't have a problem with this. If you're a man and you don't want to have children and/or don't want to pay child support on them whether they're yours or not and whether they are alive or not, then don't have sex with women. Simple as that. Choose to have sex, instead, with other men. 100% effective.

Fortunately I did it all without lawyers, so I just had my employer set it up so a big chunk of my paycheck is direct deposited to the account of my children's mother. So at least my dealings with craziness is limited to one person and not a whole system of craziness.

The court says the less time you spend with your child the more you pay. It isn't worth my lawyers fees to adjust payments for someone who is unemployed and technically homeless. But that goes back to the whole states 'equal time' bologna.

Well, yeah, if she's chronically unemployed then her payment would be some minimum set by State law. No sense in you paying to get it adjusted if it can only go down. She does have to pay it, but few CSE units will get serious about arrearages before they hit $5K.

One of these days, it will be worth going after mom. Probably when the child needs it most. Keep good records, be patient and vigilant. Try not to lose track of mom.

GAT_00:antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

I'd gladly keep him covered his entire life. The issue I have is paying his mother's lawyers fees so that she can continuously sue me for more money year after year. He doesn't see a dime of it while he is going to school full time, and working a part time job at the age of 20.

Makes sense. Her number one concern is keeping you down instead of elevating her son (who happens to be little you, who she probably despises).

I'd gladly keep him covered his entire life. The issue I have is paying his mother's lawyers fees so that she can continuously sue me for more money year after year. He doesn't see a dime of it while he is going to school full time, and working a part time job at the age of 20.

Except that the system winds up perverting that to an insane degree. It's sure as hell not unheard of for Mommy to become an unemployed addict who thinks she'll never have to do honest work in her life because she tricked an NFL player into knocking her up, and the kid then has to live in semi-poverty with her using child support money for herself, despite daddy, who has some decently invested money and a stable job after retiring from sports wanting to take care of the kid himself.

Our system tends to define "best interests of the child" as "staying with mamma regardless of how good a parent she is". Which is a problem.

/It's free money. She's going to keep milking him for the dead kid for as long as she can squeeze another penny out of this guy's moob. Why would she say anything? She will just keep farking the dad over, as long as she keeps getting paid. Like they say, the farking you get isn't worth the farking you get.

FizixJunkee:antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Not always true. My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother. She rarely paid.

The trouble is that that's incredibly rare- on the books I think it's supposed to be the most suitable parent, but in practice, it's always the mother, even if she's constantly drunk, can't hold a job, and regularly goes outside at 2AM to yell at fire hydrants at the top of her voice. The legal system simply stereotypes fathers as being the breadwinners, but completely clueless in raising children, while the mother is stereotyped as being wonderful at raising children but incapable of earning an income. If you get rid of those stigmas and weigh the parents equally as potential custodians rather than presuming that they should go to the mother and forcing any father who wants to raise his kids to basically prove the women should be institutionalized in order to get custody, you'll solve the vast majority of the issues in our child support system.

number8:Flint Ironstag: GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Which is in fact still completely off topic.

To make the situation fair when a woman finds she is pregnant the father should have equal say. If he does not want to be a father but she wants to keep the child then he doesn't have to pay any support ever. The woman has a choice, keep the child and pay the bills or give the child up. If the father agrees to keep the child and they later split up he has to pay.

Yeah, because that would never be abused or anything by every ahole out there who wants to fark every woman he sees without consequences.

I'd be willing to say it should be an available option for men, but just once. After that it's either a mandatory vasectomy or if it happens again you're paying for the first kid, including back child support, along with the second kid.

What about every woman who wants to fark men because they know exactly what the consequence will be?And that it will benefit her big time if she chooses? It takes two to have sex, and two who can take care of contraception. But from the moment of contraception the woman has all the cards and can hold the man to eighteen years of payment while the man has no say whatsoever.

It takes two to have sex. Shouldn't it take two to make the decision of what happens if babby is formed? Why does only one person get to decide? And can make a decision that legally obliges the other to years of payout.

/Hasn't happened to me, so not bitter or biased.//Just seems logical and fair.///Contraceptive pill for guys is going to change things.

I suspect it's the other way around - old-fashioned, stereotyped views of women as nurturers and men as wild animals who can serve kids best by getting the fark out of the house and bringing home some dough. Hence women - the caring, gentle gender - win the majority of these disputes. I'm not sure that's feminism.

Azlefty:While this is not right there are a few issues that are not the Courts or the agencies fault1. The Dad is an idiot2. He was paying child support to the State becasue he did not pay it at first so they had to care for his little crotch nuggets, which resulted in him owing back support and the penalties and fees3.The Dad is an idiot4. No one told the court that the kid became worm food5. The Dad is an idiot6. Daddy O did not take the time for 23 years to figure out what he was paying for and waited the said 23 years to ask what it was and is all mad now becasue of it7 Did I mention The Dad is an idiot.

Yes there is a error on the Courts part, but face it Dad should have been neutered years ago so his idiot seed does not create more cast member for idiocracy the reality series.

He needs to hire a lawyer who will get the Child supporter people to agree to call the debt satisfied just to end the negative publicity.

She was receiving current support as well as payments on what he had not been paid; it is very possible that she was not aware that she was receiving the extra for the dead kid. I think it is more than plausible since she bred with this guy twice and face it he is not a rocket scientist and idiots usually attract

She knew.I used to have to deal with mothers receiving welfare, food stamps, child support.Trust me, even ones you would think couldn't open a door know about every penny they are to receive.And you can bet when their amounts are off, delayed or otherwise disrupted they are fully aware and will be demanding appoinments with their case worker.

I knew of a guy in Denver who went into default because he quit paying after a child died. He had submitted paperwork to FMS (this group in Colorado that runs it). But the courts came after him about 2 years later stating he owed 10K or whatnot - they didn't acknowledge the death.